Guns are deeply ingrained in a significant part of our population. I hear many people say they couldn't possibly defend themselves without one. But I have made it 47 years without having to use a gun once to defend myself. And many countries manage with strict gun laws and have much lower gun violence rates. We know it is possible. My only concern is the fact that it takes away our rights. But I just can't believe the argument that we, as a country, can't provide at least as good of security with pretty tight gun restrictions.

Person-to-person sales, are totally unregulated. Because they cannot be. I can sell a gun I own, to anyone, at any time. Just like I could sell a pair of shoes.I can do it at my home, or in a parking lot, or at a gun show. It cannot be tracked or traced.

Even if guns were all registered by serial #, and sales and transfers controlled, all someone has to say is "I lost it"

No one has any idea of how many guns are in the US, regardless of what you hear.

Guns have a very long life. Most guns produced in the last 100 yrs are still around in fine working condition. I have around 20, and I have only bought 3 new ones. Im also not a collector or anything, many have been in my family for several generations.

I agree that England has much lower murder rate, but the citizens are able to purchase weapons (handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc). I'm no expert on the England permitting process, but it's not like the rate is lower because guns are outlawed. Guess I'm not getting your point or what your advocating. Both countries have access to guns, but have drastically different murder rates. I think your point supports that access to guns is not the issue.

Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population. I think murder rates are going down over time because over the US's more aggressive sentencing policy (ie strong stand on drugs starting in 80's, 3 strikes, etc) and we have less criminals around to commit crimes again.

We certainly have problems and the murder rate in the US is a sad state. However trying to eliminate guns is just not going to do it.

"Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population. I think murder rates are going down over time because over the US's more aggressive sentencing policy (ie strong stand on drugs starting in 80's, 3 strikes, etc) and we have less criminals around to commit crimes again."

I was reading some scientific article somewhere, and they tried to correlate crime rates with social changes

The main thing they could find correlation with was abortion

If people that don't want to have children are allowed to have abortion, then there is lower crime rate in the future when those children would have become old enough to commit crimes

"I don't get it. How do a people who have never had any gun control, and thereby have no experience whatsoever with how gun control works and what its effects are, speak with any authority about gun control?"

We have gun control in many different forms in the United States. It really depends on the state. There is no state where you can't purchase a firearm but it may come with a ton of red tape and headaches. In many states a concealed carry permit is impossible to get. You can't get a firearm if you are a felon. The federal assault weapons ban expired but many states have still adopted it.

The thing to look at is concealed carry and how it relates to crime statistics. From what I have seen, concealed carry shouldn't raise crime at all and possibly lower it for obvious reasons.

Brad, you originally posted that you wanted the culture to change. Regulating or banning assault type weapons is, among other things, an important symbolic way to show that our society finds these weapons unacceptable or at least highly dangerous. How do you change the culture while essentially saying that these weapons are safe enough to sell over the counter and at gun shows? There's far more stigma associated with a pack of cigarettes today than with an AK47. We have to change. You want "change" without doing anything meaningful related to the problem. You really want nothing to change. You want to lament. Of course stricter regulations will not end crime or murder. But the argument someone in this thread made that 'the Chinese are killing children with axes and knives so it's no use banning assault weapons' is just so much specious nra propaganda; it doesn't even make sense. What, we have wait for murder to end before we can address the problem of guns? We can lessen the tragedies, probably significantly, without being able to stop all of them. Isn't this worth it?

p.s. strong negative societal signals have helped to significantly reduce smoking in this country. And yeah I found those signals annoying. But we're better and healthier for them.

We are obviously a violent nation which is represented by our crime rates and large prison population. Why is that? I don't believe it is simply because we have access to guns. The causes in my opinion are much deeper--mental health treatment, eroding of the core family (high divorce rate), kids being raised in day cares, video games, music, domestic violence and many others. Something pushes people to the point of violence.

Handguns represent over 70% of all homicides. Rifles represent only 2.5%. Per FBI, but the undisclosed weapon type could skew this number. No breakdown on the percentage of rifles in the 2.5% that are actually AR type. Seems like a really small part of the overall problem. Also if you look at the weapons used in Paducah and Virginia Tech events you will see that no AR type rifles were used. The carbine rifle used during Columbine was approved weapon even though we had a AR ban. Not sure if a carbine would be considered AR---need to ask a gun expert. So when we say getting rid of AR will help I just don't buy it. I think the idiot will either buy the AR on the black market, use another type gun or move to other weapons. I think the political agenda is to start with AR and then move to handguns, shotguns, etc. For the record I don't have an AR rifle and have no desire to buy one. Banning them really doesn't matter to me.

I think (not saying you) a lot of people are saying "hey ban the AR rifles" and things will get much better. I just think that is a false belief. The VT massacre was done with two handguns.

There is probably no greater source or anxiety and frustration for a parent than that brought on by situations in which you cannot protect or defend your children.

I've been thinking about this today and remembered this article. Here's a link and some brief excerpts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97sep/grief.htm

A Grief Like No Other

The grief caused by murder does not follow a predictable course. It does not neatly unfold in stages. When a person dies after a long illness, his or her family has time to prepare emotionally for the death, to feel an anticipatory grief. When someone is murdered, the death usually comes without warning. A parent might have breakfast with a child on an ordinary morning -- and then never see or hold or speak to that child again. The period of mourning after a natural death lasts one, two, perhaps three years. The much more complicated mourning that follows a homicide may be prolonged by the legal system, the attitudes of society, the nature of the crime, and the final disposition of the case. A murder is an unnatural death; no ordinary rules apply. The intense grief experienced by survivors can last four years, five years, a decade, even a lifetime.

Parents may be torn by self-doubts. Parents are supposed to keep their children safe from harm, at any cost. The murder of a child looms as a profound failure of parental responsibility, regardless of whether or not that murder could have been prevented. The parents of a murder victim wonder what their child might have become someday. The murder of a child violates the natural order, destroying a parent's stake in the future.

The relatives of murder victims often lose not only their faith in society, the legal system, and old friends but also their faith in God. The sense of personal invulnerability that allows someone to lead a normal life -- to leave the house, drive a car, say good-bye to loved ones before a mundane errand, confident of seeing them again -- may be utterly destroyed. A murder can provoke an existential despair completely at odds with a person's lifelong beliefs. The anger many survivors feel, along with often violent fantasies of revenge, may conflict with religious traditions that stress mercy and forgiveness. Ministers and priests may alienate the families of murder victims with comments like "The Lord knows best," "Everything happens for a reason," and "It's all part of His plan." The murder of a child is difficult to reconcile with belief in a just, all-powerful God. A congregation may react insensitively to the persistence of a survivor's grief. Ken Czillinger thinks that America's religious institutions tend to promote a male-oriented approach to grief, stressing both repression and denial of feelings. The families of murder victims often find themselves pulling away from churches that have long been the focus of their lives.

We regulate private sales of cars quite successfully. Why shouldn't we do the same with guns?

And for those who do seems to constantly confuse cars with guns: Cars are designed to transport people more or less safely from one place to another. Guns are designed to kill people. It is astonishing that we have tougher regulations for cars than for guns.

We don't regulate the sale of cars. We tax and liscense if you want them registered. That's a difference. I can buy a car from joe and keep it on my place no problem. Even easier if it is concealable like a gun

And guns aren't just designed to kill people. They are for target shooting and hunting too. The percentage of guns that actually have killed a person is probably pretty low. Not sure about the percentage of cars.

Hope we would all agree the US must do a better job in institutionalizing more of our mental patients and ensure those coded as such in school do not have access to weapons in their respective households. Not a perfect system (see the recent Oregon case where a regular young man borrowed the rifle) but we just cannot wait for them to commit any sort of violent or property crime so the criminal justice system can treat them by letting them loose on the streets.

The US is a very large country with porous borders, so a gun ban isn't going to work even if the politicians agree to implement one (not likely). Maybe a multi-pronged solution of better mental (and other) health plus hardening our schools, malls, etc.. As stated above, the violent crime rate actually has gone down due to demographics; just need to get a handle on these mass shootings.

"Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population."

Could be we are stricter, better at catching criminals or both. I'd argue a lot of these people should really be in mental hospitals. If we dealt with mental illness better we could reduce the prison population and most likely the homeless population to boot.

Oh interesting fact - England has had a lower murder rate then the US about two centuries even though for much of that time guns were easily available in England. I don't think current gun laws or video games explain a 200 year trend.

I find myself actually having to agree, at least partially, with all you gun lovers who say guns aren't the problem. You're right, it's the society that produces people who see guns as an essential part of life.